Cyclist takes Mister Car to school

It’s nice to see Ted Laturnus acknowledge there’s ways of getting around that don’t involve the automobile ["New-school cruisers are truly rider-friendly", January 29–February 5], but he has some factual errors that cannot go unremarked.

First, the physics. Fat tires and lightweight frames are not your friend when it comes to momentum. In fact, heavier frames possess more inertia once in motion. As to the tires, if fat really did roll farther, why do competitive road cyclists utilize the narrowest tires feasible? The reality is, a wide tire’s rolling resistance negates the inertial advantage of its weight, due to the larger "contact area" between rubber and pavement.

> Chris Keam / Vancouver

Comments

1 Comments

MysTerri

Feb 27, 2009 at 1:22pm

MysTerri-So many auto drivers seem to take offense to the idea of making the roads pedestrian & cycle friendly. These are probably the same people who object over and over and over again, year after year after, decade after decade about second hand cigarette smoke. They have had their day and should except that things are changing whether they like it or not.

If there is anyone who thinks cigarette smoke is more toxic than auto exhaust, then I invite them to sit in a garage with one auto running - door open - for 30 minutes, while I sit in a garage - doors closed - with ten heavy smokers. I bet I am the only one who will walk out (alive) after 30 minutes. Glad to hear you make a stink about pollution, but don't stop at second hand cigarette smoke, go the distance and protest the most toxic of fumes spewed upon the populace (your children included) daily, auto exhaust.

Roads were built for us all, not just rage filled, often drunk, racing, road-hog drivers on cell phones. Can we start a class-action suit against the city for not protecting the rights of those who do not drive and do not want to be forced to breathe drivers' auto exhaust EVERYWHERE we go? How about a class-action suit against the province for handing out licenses to the ill-deserving?

0 0Rating: 0